Reclaim the name of Paladin!

[DMKastmaria]

A Cleric is a Caster who serves a Deity.

A Paladin is a Warrior who serves a Deity.

There is no reason to impose narrow interpretations on either.

Except for definition, etymology, history, etc.

Aside from that, and as far as D&D goes, the Paladin was introduced into the game as an archetype representing the epitome of knightly virtues.

I don't know where 4e took clerics, but in every other edition they are holy warriors. 2nd best attack progression. Armor wearing, weapon toting fanatical holy warriors. GG based his interpretation of the class on the Knights Templar and similar religious warrior brotherhoods.

Introducing the Paladin does cause some problems. They were originally, what amounts to a prestige class for Fighters. Introduced in the Greyhawk Supplement.

There's certainly no reason you can't have another "holy warrior" type class, other than the cleric, for non LG types.

But, calling it a Paladin is sloppy. Inaccurate.

And completely ignores the very meaning of the word.

 

[harlokin]

Except for definition, etymology, history, etc.

Aside from that, and as far as D&D goes, the Paladin was introduced into the game as an archetype representing the epitome of knightly virtues.

I don't know where 4e took clerics, but in every other edition they are holy warriors. 2nd best attack progression. Armor wearing, weapon toting fanatical holy warriors. GG based his interpretation of the class on the Knights Templar and similar religious warrior brotherhoods.

Introducing the Paladin does cause some problems. They were originally, what amounts to a prestige class for Fighters. Introduced in the Greyhawk Supplement.

There's certainly no reason you can't have another "holy warrior" type class, other than the cleric, for non LG types.

But, calling it a Paladin is sloppy. Inaccurate.

And completely ignores the very meaning of the word.

You are forcing people to perceive and play Paladins in a manner that you think appropriate, rather than in a way which may suit their DM/setting/preference. It is not conducive to uniting the DnD player base around a new edition.

On a matter of semantics, it is nothing to do with 4e, Paladins have been part of the Warrior group for several editions, while Clerics were in the Priest group.

Calling it a Paladin is neither sloppy nor inaccurate, and insisting that it has to be called something else simply due it's alignment is ridiculous.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Finally, I've thought of a cause that I can be somewhat hyperbolic, unreasonable and one-true-wayish about.

One of the greatest travesties of 4e was that any character with a bit of divine backing and some ability to challenge or mark his enemies was allowed to call himself by the name of "paladin" regardless of his moral fibre (and let's not even talk about blackguards ).

With the advent of a new edition, I propose to consign all amoral, dishonorable, unrighteous and evil so-called "paladins" to the cleansing pyres of history, to be consumed by holy flame until not even a single blemished scrap of memory remains.

The name of "paladin" should henceforth only be borne by the righteous, holy, honorable, dedicated, heroic and good. Let the forces of evil once again tremble at the very mention of the name of "paladin" and fear their righteous wrath and holy smites.

Who is with me?

I really don't care much for alignment and all, but I am for this.

The Paladin is a Holy Warrior of Good and Law. Anything else with the same abilities is a Temple Warrior. I think alignment should not limit the kind of mechanics you have access to, but it makes sense that it restricts the name you can use.

 

[DMKastmaria]

You are forcing people to perceive and play Paladins in a manner that you think appropriate, rather than in a way which may suit their DM/setting/preference. It is not conducive to uniting the DnD player base around a new edition.

On a matter of semantics, it is nothing to do with 4e, Paladins have been part of the Warrior group for several editions, while Clerics were in the Priest group.

Calling it a Paladin is neither sloppy nor inaccurate, and insisting that it has to be called something else simply due it's alignment is ridiculous.

I'm not forcing you to do anything. I'm merely pointing out what the word actually means and what the class was created to represent. As for Clerics, read the class descriptions in every pre 4e edition (don't know about 4e), then tell me what those descriptions describe.

It's not about "alignment." Screw alignment!

It's about the archetype. The code of chivalry. Cultural history. The historical and literary antecedents of the game. WotC has received more than a little criticism, for what some have seen as willfully, and arrogantly, ignoring that sort of thing.

And I don't really care all that much, what 5e does with the whole thing (I can take or leave Paladins.) I'm merely pointing out that a little erudition and intellectual honesty is called for.

 

[Stalker0]

A Cleric is a Caster who serves a Deity.

A Paladin is a Warrior who serves a Deity.

A cleric on divine power is a better warrior who serves a Deity

 

[harlokin]

A cleric on divine power is a better warrior who serves a Deity

Too true

 

[LurkAway]

A Cleric is a Caster who serves a Deity.

A Paladin is a Warrior who serves a Deity.

IIRC, didn't DDXP rumors suggest that:

A Priest is a Caster who serves a Deity

A Cleric is Warrior who serves a Deity

So a Paladin is a... ?

 

[grimslade]

I love the whole Awful Good smiter of villains with non-stop evil radar. But it is a limit that does not need to be there. Paladin is an imprecise term. Shoot, if you don't have Roland in your game, you shouldn't have paladins. A paladin is a paragon of a religion/deity/culture. The cleric is your super-cop to the paladin's Batman. He/She is a symbol, a living parable of how one should behave. It works better as a prestige class or a set of options to build toward.

The paladin has too much history in D&D not to include it at first level. The inclusive thing is to have it drop the alignment restriction, but that robs it of flavor and leaves a void for the other alignments/world views. I think leaving it as an optional class along with the non-good assassin might be a better idea. You need to build up some fluff to go with the mechanics of the class. There is the code to figure out, purpose, virtues.
So no line in the sand for me. I hope they do a good job of pointing out the full responsibility of this 'rare' class.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Paladins as a base class which is LG-only, only makes sense if you don't use pantheons or the concept of domains.

If you make it a prestige class or a theme, then fine... the "Paladin" theme or prestige class can be LG only and only ever get taken by characters who are followers of the Lawful Good ideal, because themes and PCs are additional fluff you layer over your character and his class. And an alignment restriction for fluff choices makes sense.

But so long as they are a base class (and thus more of a game mechanic choice than fluff choice) which is meant to represent the most divine warriors of a specific god... then they should be recommended to be equal or one step away from whatever the deity's alignment is. Otherwise, you need to make a second base class that is equal to the paladin in game mechanics (just with a different name), since the mechanics of any class should be available to all players.

 

[Gilladian]

Oh, I don't think it "isn't DnD" for the paladin to be other than lawful good. It's just what I prefer. I'm giving pure personal opinion here, not saying what I would require for the game to BE DnD.

I will probably play 5e, if not run it, no matter what the rules are. I just might tweak for a game I run, if that's what it takes. And this game sounds as if it will be eminently tweakable.